Lee v. Tanoue , 76 F. App'x 575 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 6, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_______________________
No. 03-10239
Summary Calendar
_______________________
LEROY LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DONNA TANOUE, Chairman
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Fort Worth Division
Civil Docket 4:01-CV-835-BE
_________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
LeRoy Lee appeals the denial of his post-judgment motion
for new trial. Because Lee filed his motion more than ten days
after the district court entered final judgment, the motion is
properly characterized as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Harcon
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Barge Co., Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th
Cir. 1986). Lee’s notice of appeal, which specifically designates
the post-judgment motion as the order being appealed, is timely
only as to the denial of that motion. Thus, this Court reviews the
district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion.
See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470
(5th Cir. 1998).
The district court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary
judgment, concluding that Lee failed to commence his civil action
within the applicable 90-day window and also failed to exhaust his
disability discrimination claim. Lee reasserted in his post-
judgment motion the same argument as was contained in his
opposition to the motion for summary judgment, namely, that his
civil action was not time-barred. After reviewing the briefs and
record, we find no error and affirm the district court’s denial of
the 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.
2